Matthew 24.1-35
July 14, 2008
While I admit that I’m in a minority who hold this view, I don’t think it’s exegetically sustainable at all to read this passage as teaching about Christ’s return, for a number of reasons:
1. The context is Jesus talking about the destruction of the temple (v. 2), which the disciples then ask him about (v. 3).
2. We can’t just assume ‘the close of the age’ (v. 3) means ‘the end of the world’. Given that Christ is talking about the destruction of the temple, it is quite natural to read it as talking about the close of the Old Covenant era with the destruction of its apparatus.
3. Jesus is addressing those disciples immediately gathered before him. They are the ones who are not to be led astray, be alarmed and who will be delivered up to death and hated (vv. 4-9).
4. vv. 15-21 are clearly talking about AD70 and the destruction of the temple, and not solely as an illustration of the persecution that will characterise the period leading up to Jesus return – this is the climactic event in Jesus’ discourse.
5. The apocalyptic language of v. 29 doesn’t have to be speaking about the end of the world. In fact, it echoes language used of the destruction of Babylon in Isaiah 13.10, and appears to be making the point that is made at length in the book of Revelation: that Babylon is Jerusalem and is being destroyed.
6. The coming of the Son of Man (v. 30) is in its biblical context most emphatically not about his coming to earth to judge but about his coming to heaven in vindication over and against his enemies, and to receive authority over the whole earth (Daniel 7.13-14, 21-22).
7. Fig trees (v. 32) are symbolic of Israel (see e.g. 1 Kings 4.25)
8. All the things mentioned in Matthew 24.1-33 – including the coming of the Son of Man – will take place in the lifetime of those disciples to whom Jesus was speaking (v. 34).
Now, that doesn’t mean Matthew 24 doesn’t have application to the church today. We can still learn from the exhortations not to be led astray by false prophets and false Christs, not to fear at natural disaster, to stand fast in persecution, to remember God’s grace in restraining persecution for the sake of his elect, to recognize Christ’s authority over all things &c.
May 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm
As often occurred in the OT prophets an ‘immediate’ event partially fulfils the prophesy in order to confirm its yet future fulfilment. There is, therefore, no major reason not to allow for a double fulfillment IMO. This is also the view of Gill (see here)
July 16, 2008 at 9:56 am
Except that double fulfilment, though we talk about it a lot, is actually nonsensical.
A prophecy must have a referent, a single referent. It may have multiple echoes, shadows, antitypes, and some of those may be far more important in the grand scheme of things than the actual referent.
This must be the case where a series of events is contingent upon the fulfilment of a prophecy. So, Rev 18-19. Once Babylon has fallen, then the following things happen: the beast and false prophet are overthrown, the 1000 yr reign begins, the great judgement takes place. None of these can happen until Babylon has fallen.
If we say Babylon fell in AD70, that is the referent of the prophecy, though the pattern of Babylon’s fall may be repeated throughout history, because God often does things in similar ways. Perhaps the pattern of Babylon’s fall will even be repeated in the second coming, which is after all more important. But we don’t call that double fulfilment. The prophecy is fulfilled in AD70, and it continues to have many important echoes, associations and applications.
If we say there is partial fulfilment in AD70, but final (double) fulfilment in the second coming, we’re actually saying there is still only a single fulfilment, because none of the subsequent contingent events will happen until the second coming (Babylon’s fall).
Thus an idealist hermeneutic in reality collapses logically into a futurist hermeneutic.
July 16, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Neil,
You write with considerable certainty about the nature of prophecy. ‘non sensical’ ‘must have’ ‘logically collapses’ – all strong language, but it does not seem clear to me how you know the precise nature of prophecy so precisely.
How do you know that it is as you describe it?
Peter
July 16, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I’m not really a fan of double fulfilment talk either I must admit.
If consistent it whiffs of historical gnosticism (the prophets never spoke of a concrete historical situatioon.
If inconsistent (one of the fulfilments is bigger and badder than the others) it can be very very close to either a futurist position (the real/ final fulfilment referred to in the prophecy is at/before the second coming).
One primary referent, with multiple possible typological referents (history is inherently typological after all) is a far more attractive model I’d suggest, fully consistent with a biblical view of history and the importance of original context.
July 17, 2008 at 10:14 am
If it is just a matter of emphasis or use of words to describe the nature of things, then I don’t mind whether the DF concept is used or rejected.
But it sounds odd to me to speak so strongly against double fulfillment when it is simply an attempt to draw people’s attention to something that occurs in the Bible narrative, but is not actually explained by the Bible itself. In such a situation id encourage flexibility in use of terms – i’m not comfortable with describing an approach as ‘gnostic’ or ‘logically inconsistent’ etc. Prophecy is an extraordinarily complex issue. One way to get a good feel for the issue is to read through the New Testament with Carson’s new commentary on the NT use of the OT. Time well spent. God bless, Peter
July 17, 2008 at 10:57 am
Peter,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to come over too strong. It’s not something I can envisage going to the stake for, or indeed falling out with you or Richard over. On the grand scale of things it’s not terribly important.
Saying nonsensical just means it doesn’t appear to make sense to me, though of course it used to be precisely the way I thought.
I also concede that double fulfilment may work with some prophecies. It’s simply with those where subsequent events are contingent upon the fulfilment of a prior prophecy (like Daniel’s eg of Matt 24 – after that happens, then this), I think the prophecy must have one referent.
July 17, 2008 at 11:34 am
No worries – Im sorry if I was too strong too. I guess I have been a bit surprised over past year or two how quite a few friends have been very black and white on issues that I think we would all agree, on reflection, are not central to evangelicalism. I may have been unfairly criticizing one comment from you but had lots of other things in mind. Which is not very generous or reasonable of me! Anyway, would be nice to hear how you are doing – drop me an email when you get the chance. You can get me through blog or http://www.stilldeeper.com
July 18, 2008 at 10:16 am
Neil,
Your points are well made, but of course some of your arguments are founded on a chronological reading of Revelation, which (some) Reformed commentators would not hold to (cf. your comments regarding the chronology of Rev. 18-20).
FWIW I don’t agree with a double fulfillment in Matthew 24:1-35 hence I am not going to defend the position save to say the interpretation of prophesy certainly would allow for it, for, as I noted above, in the OT prophets an ‘immediate’ event often partially fulfils the prophesy in order to confirm its yet future fulfilment (cf. throughout Isaiah).
August 1, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I was thinking about this yesterday:
Matthew: Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Mark: As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
Luke: Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.” “Teacher,” they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?”
In all of these the context was the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. None of them are looking to the second coming of Jesus.
August 3, 2008 at 8:07 pm
[...] out Daniel Newman’s post on Matthew [...]